Does Free Will Require a Redeemer?

[romanbear]

Larry;
Why should I read from men I don't know or trust. Is it because I would better understand those I oppose. Or that by some work of God I might be converted.

I remember asking you to read Dave Hunts book "What Love is This" Your response was something like this "why waste time on Junk". If this was good enough for you then I'll take your advice and not read a bunch of junk.
There are many more theologins that oppose your view than agree with it.
Romanbear

 

[Yelsew]

Then I would suggest you read some theologians like Hodge, Strong, Grudem (a little easier read), Berkhof, Boettner, or Reymond.

Just what makes those men that you listed "Theologians"?

Never mind you also provided the answer to that question

All of these will confirm exactly what I have said.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by romanbear:
Why should I read from men I don't know or trust. Is it because I would better understand those I oppose. Or that by some work of God I might be converted.

Perhaps both. But most importantly, it would make you better able to discuss the things that we are talking about.

I remember asking you to read Dave Hunts book "What Love is This" Your response was something like this "why waste time on Junk". If this was good enough for you then I'll take your advice and not read a bunch of junk.

I was well familiar with the position of Dave Hunt. It was nothing new. That has been argued and refuted for years. You can find it in any number of books I had already read.

There are many more theologins that oppose your view than agree with it.

Then why don't you list some for us. Tell us who and tell us how they argue for it.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Then I would suggest you read some theologians like Hodge, Strong, Grudem (a little easier read), Berkhof, Boettner, or Reymond.

Just what makes those men that you listed "Theologians"?

Never mind you also provided the answer to that question

All of these will confirm exactly what I have said.

</font>[/QUOTE]You just made a very shameful post. What makes these men theologians is not their agreement with. There are some theologians who don't agree with me. Thiessen, Boettner, Allis, Berkhof, Ladd, etc. all are theologians who disagree with me on some point.

What makes these men theologians is the fact that their training is in theology and they have each published widely recognized theologians.

Why don't you stop the foolish and inane argumentation like this!! You have done it two or three times and it is unnecessary and does not further the conversation. Everyone knows these men are theologians and if someone wants support for the position that I have posted, here are some people who give it. Romanbear made the statement that theologians disagree with me and I gave this to show that he was wrong.

 

[Yelsew]

Well what you said is these men are theologians because they agree with you. Hence my comment!

You would have jumped right in the middle of my doodoo if I had said something similar, YOU HAVE done so with others. So if you are going to chastise me, consider your self chastised for the same kind of Conduct! You fellow Calvinist Npetreley is a master at it, and there are others who do the same. I don't see you chastising them.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
Well what you said is these men are theologians because they agree with you. Hence my comment!

No that is not what I said. What I said is that they are theologians who agree with me, not theologians because they agree with me. This is patently obvious.

Furthermore, my second clearly stated that there are theologians who don't agree with me. They are still theologians. .. Are you really that desparate for material??

You would have jumped right in the middle of my doodoo if I had said something similar, YOU HAVE done so with others. So if you are going to chastise me, consider your self chastised for the same kind of Conduct! You fellow Calvinist Npetreley is a master at it, and there are others who do the same. I don't see you chastising them.

Similar to what?? I have no idea what you are talking about here ... I chastised you for the blatant misreading of a clear post. I have not seen npetreley do it. If he does, I will say the same. There is enough wrong with your position that we don't need to distort it to refute it.

 

[romanbear]

Hi Larry;
A quote from you;
---------------------------------------------------
But most importantly, it would make you better able to discuss the things that we are talking about.
-------------------------------------------------

Are you saying you are more qualified than I am. You certainly aren't a very humble person are you ? Your attitude says a lot about you Larry. But even still it doesn't make you the supreme intelligence you think you are.
Romanbear

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by romanbear:
Are you saying you are more qualified than I am. You certainly aren't a very humble person are you ? Your attitude says a lot about you Larry. But even still it doesn't make you the supreme intelligence you think you are.

If you went to your auto mechanic who had spent a lifetime working on cars, would you say he is more qualified than you to talk about cars?? And would that make him arrogant?? Of course not.

What about your doctor?? Does the fact that he ahs invested much time and energy in reading and studying and practicing medicine make him more qualified to talk about it than you?? Of course. Does that make him arrogant?? Of course not.

You see the ultimate inconsistency in your position? Study is not a cause for arrogance and I am not suggesting either by statement or implication that it is. What I said was that if you read the theologies, even the one who disagree with you, you will be better able to discuss the issues that are relevant.

On this case, yes, I am more qualified than you to talk about this issue because I have seen your comments and I know the discussion that are going on in theology. I am not as qualified as some others in this forum, nor do I pretend to be. There are some discussions I just stay out. I have almost 5000 posts on this board and I bet I haven't been in the church history forum more than 10 times. I don't know; I am just guessing (so if someone searches and disproves me, I am not lying). The point is, I do not have a great background in church history. I don't pretend to. I have read some but I am very dependent on others in that area. This area is different for me, as are the languages. I have invested a large amount of time and effort and thought into these discussions, and like the doctor or the auto mechanic, I am able and qualified to talk about it, moreso than those who have not invested the same.

You have misjudged my attitude because you have assumed me to be saying something I am not saying. I have read the theologies from both sides. I konw what the discussions are. And that makes me, at least to some degree, qualified to talk about it. You, not having had this breadth of exposure are not as qualified to talk about it. We accept that principle in every area of life. Why not accept it here?

What I have encouraged, and continue to encourage, is that no matter what position you hold, read widely so you are at least familiar with what is being discussion. Your constant misuse of terms and ideas shows that you are not as up to speed in this area as you could be. I encourage you to pursue it.

 

[4study]

I'm coming in late on this thread but could not pass it up.

Remember, if Adam had not sinned, he would not have needed a Redeemer.

I'm glad this was stated. It's assumption most take for granted and I think it needs to be addressed.

This statement speaks volumes about what most believe about God. Much of which is not based upon scripture. In a nut shell, this statement means "Adam, before the fall, did not need God".

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by 4study:
I'm coming in late on this thread but could not pass it up.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Remember, if Adam had not sinned, he would not have needed a Redeemer.

I'm glad this was stated. It's assumption most take for granted and I think it needs to be addressed.

This statement speaks volumes about what most believe about God. Much of which is not based upon scripture. In a nut shell, this statement means "Adam, before the fall, did not need God". </font>[/QUOTE]No it doesn't at all. It means that Adam didn't need a redeemer. That is different than not needing God. There is a whole lot more to "God" than redeeming.

Perhaps you should have stayed out of this discussion

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by 4study:
I'm coming in late on this thread but could not pass it up.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Remember, if Adam had not sinned, he would not have needed a Redeemer.

I'm glad this was stated. It's assumption most take for granted and I think it needs to be addressed.

This statement speaks volumes about what most believe about God. Much of which is not based upon scripture. In a nut shell, this statement means "Adam, before the fall, did not need God". </font>[/QUOTE]Excuse me? How did Adam come to be? Would there even be an Adam without God?

Get real!

 

[romanbear]

Hi Larry;
I will admit that my communication skills are lacking, my spelling isn't always correct either, my punctuation, or even my grammar. I have never stuck my neck out and made such claims of perfection. You shouldn't either.

Your critique of my of my attempts to inform others of truth is unjustified and shows that you are one who believes himself better than I am. Maybe you are Larry. You seem so full of pride over your education, but it doesn't bring you any closer than I am to God, does it? Ever since you first met me over in Bible translation debate you have done your best to impress me with your education. I'm not impressed and that bothers you.

Your not my mechanic nor my doctor and you certainly are not my pastor or my religious leader. I never ask for advice from someone who I don't trust. I don't know anything about you Larry, not really . Just what I see on this message board. I have to tell you what I see for the most part from you is not impressing me.

I'm much more impressed by the devotion and love one shows for others. You say you've studied the Bible all your life. Ditto Larry. I was raised in a Baptist home and Bible study was a requirement, I did not over look. I was saved at 16 years old that was 40 years ago I'm the first one to admit that I don't know it all. If I could live to be as old as my father and studied every day and night I still wouldn't have all the answers. Neither would you.

My favorite preacher was J Vernon McGee. My favorite teacher was John Walvoord especially on prophecy, Other authors I have read are Decker, Salem kirban,James White, Ripley,Josh McDowell,Ankerburg, Tozer,Price, DL Moody,,Texe Mars, Hunt and I could go on and on, but I'm sure your opinion of my selected reading is also flawed. Currently I'm working on 6 Books " What Love is this" '"Chafer Systematic Theology Volume two", "From Bethlehem to Olivet" ,"The discipline of grace" "The secret teachings of the Masonic lodge" "The Disciple Making Pastor" Oh yes the most important the Bible. I may not be as wide read as you but I have been reading since I was 7 years old. I read an average of 10 books a month, Not all on theology. Does all this make me more qualified than you. No. But I'm not nearly as ignorant as you would make me out to be.

I have several hobbies one is turning in to a business that I don't want. I restore old cars and I love photography, Carpentry, electronics,and Music. I also play the piano.

The very fact that you would attempt to criticize my education or my knowledge of the Bible makes you look jealous of me, threatened even.

I don't care one bit about what you think of me Larry I'm here live with it.
Romanbear

 

[4study]

Pastor Larry,

No it doesn't at all. It means that Adam didn't need a redeemer. That is different than not needing God. There is a whole lot more to "God" than redeeming.

Hmmm. Let me ask you this then. Who is Jesus? Is not Jesus the "fulness of the Godhead bodily"? Is not Jesus the Redeemer? If Adam did not need a redeemer, then he did not need Jesus. If he did not need Jesus, then he didn't need God in order to know God. If he didn't need God in order to know God, then Adam is able to do much without God. The question is, how dependent is Adam upon God? Completely dependent or just a little .

The problem is, you're separating God from the concept of "redemption". I'm not sure you can do that without striping God of His own nature.

 

[4study]

Yelsew,

Excuse me? How did Adam come to be? Would there even be an Adam without God?

I wasn't implying Adam came into existence without God rather, that once he was created, he wouldn't be dependent upon God. Keep in mind I'm taking the opening statement of this thread to the "next level". If someing is going to say "if Adam didn't sin, he would have no need for a redeemer", let's think about it and try to decide if such a statement is valid or not.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by romanbear:
I have never stuck my neck out and made such claims of perfection. You shouldn't either.

I haven't. I have no pride in my education. I am constantly amazed by how much I don't know. I don't remember ever meeting you in a translation debate but I am sure I did. The only time education has come up is when people start throwing their weight around. I am not interested in education; I am interested in knowledge. But when someone calls a fact into question, it is helpful to be able to back that up by saying what your qualifications are to speak on it. Take Ray for example. I talks about his doctoral work but refuses to tell us where he is getting it from. Seeing some of the exegesis and church history that Ray puts forth here, I seriously question the credibility of his doctoral program. What I have read from him would not pass muster at most Bible colleges, much less a doctoral program. That is why I am curious. I wish he would clear it up. Ray is one of the kindest posters on this forum. He seems like a genuinely nice guy. But it it shows that have degrees and the like makes no difference. It is the truth that matters.

My critique of your attempts to inform others of truth is justified because I believe the "truth" you are informing them of is not truth at all. I think there are some serious and dangerous errors in it. This is a discussion forum. We discuss things. I made the comment that your comments are not in keeping with someone who is well read and well studied in this subject. It doesn't mean you aren't in other subjects. I have no idea. You can take it or leave it. I am encouraging you to broaden your horizons with respect to this.

Your not my mechanic nor my doctor and you certainly are not my pastor or my religious leader. I never ask for advice from someone who I don't trust. I don't know anything about you Larry, not really . Just what I see on this message board. I have to tell you what I see for the most part from you is not impressing me.

That is fine. I am not concerned by whether others are impressed or not. I try to speak the truth in love, with emphasis on both. I am not the pastor of any one on this board. I said before, the only reason "pastor" is on the front of my name is because "larry" was already taken. Most of my church people call me Larry and that is fine with me.

I haven't made you out to be ignorant. I do believe there are some things you are simply uninformed on. I and others have tried to help you out. My reason for believing that is reading what you say. You make some demonstrably wrong statements that you should know better. You don't accept correction very well. Consider the recent discussion of Arminius and his death. You made some demonstrably wrong statements, lashed out at someone who posted the evidence to the contrary, and refused to apologize for being wrong. The other day, when I was shown to be wrong, I apologized.

My "criticism" has simply been an encouragement to you to dig deeper in some of these things and expose yourself to those who write for what they believe, rather than those who write against what others believe. Understanding what calvinism teaches by reading Dave Hunt is simply insufficient.

It is interesting though that we have some things in common. I too am musical. I play the piano and several other instruments. I have done some arranging and directed the choir. In fact, I was a music and youth pastor for 3 years. I do some amateur woodworking and I enjoy photography. I am not interested in old cars though, so you can have that all to yourself.

I don't care one bit about what you think of me Larry I'm here live with it.

I am glad you are here. I appreciate your participation.

 

[russell55]

Is not Jesus the Redeemer? If Adam did not need a redeemer, then he did not need Jesus. If he did not need Jesus, then he didn't need God in order to know God. If he didn't need God in order to know God, then Adam is able to do much without God. The question is, how dependent is Adam upon God? Completely dependent or just a little .

Let's put this another way. A redeemer is someone who buys someone back from something--who frees someone from something. God redeemed Israel from slavery in Egypt, and Christ redeems us from slavery to sin. If Adam hadn't sinned would we have needed someone to redeem us--to act as a redeemer on our behalf?

The question has not a whole lot to do with how much we need God, but more to do with exactly what work we need God to do for us. Adam, even before he sinned, was completely dependent on God to provide what he needed to live, and I also believe he was dependent upon God in order to remain righteous, and there are probably all sorts of other ways in which he was dependent, but my brain is tired.....

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by 4study:
Let me ask you this then. Who is Jesus? Is not Jesus the "fulness of the Godhead bodily"? Is not Jesus the Redeemer?

God. Yes. Yes.

If Adam did not need a redeemer, then he did not need Jesus.

But this is a huge jump in logic. Christ is also the creator (Col 1:16; John 1:3). He is the sustainer (Heb 1:3; Col 1:16). To make this jump is unjustified.

If he did not need Jesus, then he didn't need God in order to know God. If he didn't need God in order to know God, then Adam is able to do much without God. The question is, how dependent is Adam upon God? Completely dependent or just a little .

Again, I don't buy your huge jump in logic. Adam would not even be here without Christ. Adam knew God apart from Christ. Adam walked and talked with God before his fall. Adam is completely dependent on God, before the fall as well as after the fall.

The problem is, you're separating God from the concept of "redemption". I'm not sure you can do that without striping God of His own nature.

I am saying that "redeemer" is not a part of God's essence, at least so far as I know. Redeem is something God did through Christ. It is a not a part of who he is per se. And God does many things that do not involve redemption.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by 4study:
Yelsew,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Excuse me? How did Adam come to be? Would there even be an Adam without God?

I wasn't implying Adam came into existence without God rather, that once he was created, he wouldn't be dependent upon God. Keep in mind I'm taking the opening statement of this thread to the "next level". If someing is going to say "if Adam didn't sin, he would have no need for a redeemer", let's think about it and try to decide if such a statement is valid or not. </font>[/QUOTE]Well then let's take the "If Adam didn't sin" scenario to its logical conclusion. We would not be having this conversation! He did sin, so we are!

 

[russell55]

I am saying that "redeemer" is not a part of God's essence, at least so far as I know. Redeem is something God did through Christ. It is a not a part of who he is per se.

Of course, if "redeemer" is part of God's essense, does that mean God needed for people to need something to be redeemed from, so he needed for them to sin???? Now you know why my brain is tired....

 

[4study]

Pastor Larry,

Thanks for you response.

But this is a huge jump in logic. Christ is also the creator (Col 1:16; John 1:3). He is the sustainer (Heb 1:3; Col 1:16). To make this jump is unjustified.

My jumps in logic may not "sound right" but let's think about this.

Can we dissect Jesus into parts? Is He Redeemer only part of the time? If so, then what about His other "parts". Is He Creator/Sustainer only part of the time? I'm sure would say "of course not". Then why not say the same of Him as Redeemer? Is Redeemer who Christ is or not? If not, then who is Christ? For whoever Christ is, is God.

Again, I don't buy your huge jump in logic. Adam would not even be here without Christ. Adam knew God apart from Christ. Adam walked and talked with God before his fall. Adam is completely dependent on God, before the fall as well as after the fall.

So "Adam knew God apart from Christ"? How can this be? Are there two ways to know God?

I am saying that "redeemer" is not a part of God's essence, at least so far as I know. Redeem is something God did through Christ. It is a not a part of who he is per se. And God does many things that do not involve redemption

Which is why I said "This statement speaks volumes about what most believe about God". A lot of this also depends upon what one believes "redemption" is.

If Christ is "the propitiation" and "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world", when is God not "a redeemer"? Is there any time in God's existence that "redemption" is not there?